Re: Getting to closure on the remaining issues

On 23 Jan 2014, at 21:58, Eric Prud'hommeaux <> wrote:

>> I know you wanted to avoid the confusion between the class and the
>> object. 
> make that "interaction model"
>>        That would actually align with the rationale of changing
>> rel=type to rel=interaction. That being said, I think it's fine to
>> keep ldp:Resource/ldp:Container as values because a class is just a
>> URI as others that can can be used as object. We would just make sure
>> that by dereferencinng them, we found find the information about using
>> them in the context of rel=profile and everything would be just fine.
> Defenders of using "ldp:Container" to identify the interaction model
> have stated that doesn't bind us to using only one interaction model
> to manipulate properties of RDF nodes of type ldp:Container. I'm very
> curious how they will support that in the text that comes back when
> you dereference ldp:Container. I propose something like
> "ldp:Container identifies a graph structure with the following schema.
> It does not identify any particular interaction model for manipulating
> nodes with that structure."

Which schema? Do you have a proposal for defining this schema?


Social Web Architect

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 21:50:35 UTC